How many deaths do we need for Human Rights Attention?

-->

 

Human tragedy: A farmer and child in India's 'suicide belt'

How many deaths do we need for Human Rights Attention?

Farmers’ Suicide in India: A perspective through Human Development, Human Right and Human Security

The concepts of Human Development (HD), Human Rights (HR) and Human Security (HS) are gaining broad attention in today’s world after the United Nations (UN) started publishing various reports with major focuses on these issues. UN publishes the yearly Human Development Index (HDI) and HS reports every year and ranks the countries on the basis of socio-economic progress with respect to Human Rights. What ever may be the rank of the country in regard to HDI and Human Rights; there are certain roles of a nation to guarantee human rights and human security not to mention an individual’s roles and obligations. However, sometimes, human development, human rights and human security issues pass unnoticed and unheard with no attention as if they never existed. Similar is the case with farmers’ suicides in so many states of India starting from mid 1990s. More than a hundred thousand farmers from various parts of India committed suicide in between 1997-2005. Only after so many deaths, lately, some research groups, institutions, Multinational Companies (MNCs), farmers’ organizations, international nongovernmental organizations, the India government, and civil society activists conducted various researches on farmers’ suicide in India. Most of the studies were linked the farmers’ suicide cases with their indebtedness and failure of the crop as the causes of their suicide. Some studies showed that MNCs like Monsanto had greater role in the suicides of the farmers for providing genetically modified seeds (Bt cotton) and therefore, they should to be banned in India and they need to compensate the deceased farmers’ family members. On the other hand, the studies carried out by MNCs concluded that they did not have any role in pushing the farmers commit suicide. Similarly, the government study team of India came up with the conclusion that there are several other factors like religion, environment and poverty which contributed for such magnitude of farmers’ suicides in India. But it is surprising to find that there is little or no research materials found linked with HD, HR and HS as if the suicide deaths were natural phenomenon. Therefore, this paper will be focused on the farmers’ suicide of India through the perspectives of HD, HR and HS. First of all, I am going to provide the basic background of the farmers’ suicide in India and then I will try to analyze this critically through HD, HR and HS perspectives with conclusion at the end. I will also try to touch a bit on trade liberalization and its impact on the lives of farmers through intersectional perspectives.

Background on the suicides of the farmers of India:

“In the ten years period between 1997 and 2006 as many as 166,304 farmers committed suicide in India" (Nagaraj, 2008: 3). Sainath, who is the author of ‘Everybody Loves a Good Drought’, called this long-term suicide as “The Largest Wave of Suicides in History” (2009). According to Nagaraj the figure could be more than this since there were some states which did not report the suicide cases at all (2008). Similarly, National Crime Records Bureau, which has the record of those who committed suicides in India, does not include women farmers as farmers (Sainath, 2009). UN report in 2007 stated that 1 farmer in every 32 minutes committed suicide in India from 1997-2005 (UN, 2007). Ghosh in his lecture series, “The Political Economy of Farmers’ Suicides in India” states that these suicide cases in Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka “highlighted the severity of the crisis- But the crisis was not and still is not, local in scope or origin, but unfortunately national” (2005). Only in 2006, the government of India announced 30 districts as “distressed according to the concentration of reported suicides” (Ete, 2007). “The largest number of reported cases was concentrated in districts of northeast Maharashtra, northwest Andhra Pradesh, and northern Karnataka, where cotton was increasingly planted in 1990s in response to demand generate by the large textile industry in Mumbai” (Saunders in Gruere et al. 2008: 1). Ghosh states that though agricultural crisis had so much impact in the country, “the public and media reactions, as well as the policy responses, have been so intermittent that even now, comprehensive measure to address the systemic problems are yet to be take” (2005: 1). 

Crisis through HD perspective:

Human Development Report was first introduced by UNDP in the year 1990. UNDP states HD as “a new way of measuring development by combining indicators of life expectancy, educational attainment and income into a composite human development index, the HDI” (2009). Human Development is measure with the combination of three major factors life expectancy, educational attainment and living standard (ibid.).

The report has been used as a framework to measure socio-economic development of a particular country (ibid.). Now, in context to this framework, we can measure the socio-economic conditions along with the life expectancy and living standard of those farmers who committed suicide in India.

Age distribution of suicides of farmers in India, 2001

Table 1

Male                                                            Female
Category	Up to 14 years	15-29	30-44	45-59	60+		Up to 14 years	15-29	30-44	45-59	60+
Farmers	88	3830	5119	3414	1378		80	1028	889	451	138

Source: (Nagaraj, 2008)

The life expectancy of Indian at birth is 61-62 years in 2001 according to the Population Reference Bureau (India Together, 2009). Those who committed suicide according to the above table were from the age groups of 30-44 years for male and 15-29 for female. These data show that many of the farmers died even before they crossed 60 which is not a good indicator in terms of Human Development Index as the life expectancy in that year in India was 61-62 years. It is surprised to see how small children up to the age of 14 years also committed suicide. According to the UN report “86.5 percent of farmers who took their lives were financially indebted” and “almost 6 in 10 of those who kill themselves had debts between $110 and $550” (2007). This statistics clearly prove how poor the living standard of those who ended their lives. The farmers’ community lack adequate facilities and opportunities which could support their living standard of their lives. Mahbub ul Haq, the founder of Human Development Report views objective of human development as “to create an enabling environment for people to enjoy long, healthy and creative lives” (UNDP, 2009). Did the farmers have such enabling environment so that they could live healthy lives? How do we justify the thousands of suicides of farmers in India? Suicide, which is not a symptom of happiness, is the worst situation in human life which comes when human being think that there is no choice left anymore in their lives. The suicide rate among the destitute farmers would not have increased if the farmers were provided economic freedom. But that was not the case with them.

Crisis through Human Rights Perspective:

            Farmers’ suicide cases can also be linked with human rights. According to United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, human rights are the “rights inherent to all human beings, whatever our nationality, place of residence, sex, national or ethnic origin, color, religion, language, or any other status” (2010). “We are all equally entitled to our human rights without discrimination” (UDHR, 2010). Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) came into existence on 10^th of December 1948. Article 3 of the UDHR states “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person” (UN, 2009). Is the farmers’ suicide in India the indicator of grave violation of human rights from the Indian government? Who should guarantee the human rights of those farmers? What is the role of the government in ensuring human rights to its citizens? I will try to answer these questions connecting with the suicides of farmers in India. The number of those who committed suicide is not one or two. It crossed more than a hundred thousand as if there was no such human dignity and value existed. Where was the security of the person? According to the General Assembly Resolution 53/144 on “Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms” of article 2, state’s role in guaranteeing the human rights to its citizens is stressed as “a prime responsibility and duty” (UN, 1999). Though it’s mentioned in the UDHR, it was not practiced and implemented in reality.  Similarly, article 25 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights mentions that “Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control” (UN, 2009). Nagaraj mentions that many farmers lost their livelihood and there was no alternative opportunity provided by the India government to the farmers (2008). Though the farmers worked so hard from dawn to dusk, they received less or no profit at all. It was hard for them to join their mouth and hands. Instead, they fell into more debts and most of them were compelled to default (Nagaraj, 2008). After the change from agrarian crops to cash crops, many farmers had to pay more money for new seeds, fertilizers and pesticides which further pushed them to demand for more loans. The farmers had to solely depend on rain water because of the drought and lack of irrigation system. There was repeated failure of the crops and most of the farmers could not meet the high cost of cultivation (TISS, 2005). All the facts about the farmers in India show that there was no “reasonable limitation of working hours,” and “free choice of employment to just and favorable conditions of work” (UN, 2009) which means these farmers were deprived of economical rights. Durkheim, who claimed suicide as the social fact, claims that suicide rate increase during the crises of economies (Fulcher and Scott, 2006). Durkheim stated, “It might be expected that a recession that caused bankruptcies, unemployment and increasing poverty would send up the suicide rate” (ibid.). The report of Tata Institute of Social Sciences states that “the failure of the state and its politico-economic policy” is also one of the causes of farmers’ suicide (2005). These above details illustrate that the India government failed to guarantee human rights to the farmers. Johan Galtung defines structural violence as an unintended violence (Roberts, 2006). Referring to the National Human Rights Commission and the State Human Rights Commission, Kumar, in his article ‘Indian Farmers Need Human Rights’ states that ‘it become the duty and responsibilities” of such institutions (2007). He also asserts that the suicides of farmers in India are violation of human rights (ibid.). He further mentions that “Farmers’ suicides are an ongoing disaster that needs necessary response, including support to the victims from governmental and non-governmental actors” (Kumar, 2007). Therefore, farmers’ suicide cases indicate the human rights violation from the government of India since the state could not guarantee human right to its citizens.

Crisis through the perspective of Human Security:

            After looking at the farmers’ suicide cases through the perspectives of human development and human rights, now I am going to look at it through human security perspective. Des Gasper, in his article “Human Rights, Human Needs, Human Development, Human Security: Relationships between four international ‘human’ discourses” states that Human Development Reports which came out in 1993 and 1994 “tries to humanize the treatment of security” (2007). UNDP, in its Human Development Report in the year 1994, defines the concept of human security as “freedom from fear and freedom from want” which lies in “the economy, food production, health, the environment, the personal and community level and politics” (Truong, Wieringa and Chhachi, 2006). Though there are many definitions of Human Security[1], Tigerstorm defines it as “the protection of some referent object by reducing its vulnerability and by eliminating or lessening threats to its survival or well-beings” (2007). According to Frerks and Goldewijk, Human Security is a “safety from chronic threats such as hunger, disease and repression, but also must include protection from sudden and hurtful disruptions in the pattern of daily life” (2007: 27). Relating to the above definitions of human security, we can pose a question; did the farmers in India feel secure both socially and economically? Majority of the farmers who committed suicide in Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra were the ones who could not pay high loans (Gruere et al., 2008). “Farmers who committed suicide have consistently been harassed for immediate repayment of loans even after a crop failure” (ibid: 36-27).  Most of the farmers were having economic hardships and they did not have any other alternative. Instead, they had to carry out the agricultural work though it was pushing them towards debt and loans which ultimately became the reasons for suicide for many farmers. Even in such difficult situations, socio-economic security seems to be virtually absent. According to Hebbar, human security is an “expansive in that it extends the concept of security to human beings, to conditions of everyday life, the social and economic crisis created by modern development that adversely affect and impact lives of people” (2007). As per Hebbar, human security is important to “enhance human freedom and human fulfillment” (2007). Relating to these definitions of human security and farmers’ suicide cases in India, it is clear that the farmers did not have socio-economic freedom to fulfill their basic requirement. Hebbar states that there was lack of socio-economic support for the farmers in India (2007). After many suicide cases occurred, the India government implemented relief package programs. Relating to this issue, Hebbar mentions that the ones who benefitted are not the farmers but “but banks and the agriculture implements production companies” (2007).  Referring to Human Security Commission Report 2003, Hebbar concludes that there are three main economy related human security issues which are central causes of farmers’ suicide in India (2007).  They are “insufficient economic resources, unstable economic flows and asset losses” (Hebbar, 2007). Where is the human security mechanism provided for those thousands of farmers? Where is the role of state in ensuring the security? Therefore, human security issues in farmers’ community was absent which is one of the reasons for farmers’ suicide.

Trade Liberalization and its impact: Who are the one to suffer most: Male or female?[2]

It is really hard to point out the specific cause of farmers’ suicides in India. There are several micro, macro, global and local connections and reflection behind it. It is not a good idea to conclude that the continuous debt burden was the only major cause behind the farmers’ suicide and only debt relief package would pull out farmers from committing suicide. This hypothesis will not lead to a solution but may take us to no where situation. Several study groups came up with different causes of the suicides of the farmers. Keeping in mind that there are several factors behind such continuous incidences, we can briefly link these suicide issues of farmers in India with global connection not limiting it to local level. Ghosh, in his “Freedom from Hunger” lecture series mentions that “the economic reforms did not include any specific package specifically designed for agriculture. In particular, fiscal spending, trade liberalization, financial liberalization and privatization of important areas of economic activity and service provision had adverse impact on cultivation and rural living conditions” (2007). Shiva’s opinion on the farmers’ suicide in India is linked with globalization process beyond local perspective (2009). She states that the implementation of World Bank’s structural adjustment program (SAP) brought drastic negative consequences in India opening doors for multinational corporations like Cargill, Monsanto and Syngenta which displaced the traditional farm seeds and replaced by preventing “seed savings through patents and by engineering seeds with non-renewable traits” (ibid.). Ghosh claims that “the state of Andhra Pradesh had become almost a laboratory for every neo-liberal economic experiment” (2005). Henceforth, we can directly see the linkage between globalization, trade liberalization and the impact of powerful World Bank’s structural adjustment program at local level.

We can also relate the suicide of the farmers in India through gender and intersectional perspectives. Through the lens of gender, we always see the major focus is on female. Men are missing in the discussion of gender since men are usually seen as “obstacles to women’s development” (Cleaver, 2002). There is no doubt that liberalization and SAP left more negative impacts both on men and women but “men are not always the winners” (ibid.) though neo-liberal policies are against “women’s enjoyment of human rights” (Elson, 2003). While looking at the suicide cases in India, male suicide outnumbered female. Nagaraj provides the statistics[3] which is “close to 85 percent of all the farm suicides are by male farmers, and every fifth male suicide in the country is a farm suicide.” (Table to not available)

Though both men and women are affected with liberalization and globalization processes, in some cases men are more affected than women as in the above table. Therefore, more often, instead of just looking at the problems through the lens of one side, intersectional way of analyzing the problems would be a better and solution-oriented.

Conclusion:

In today’s world, there has been lot more discussion and talk on human rights, human development and human security. It is really a need to see the cases like farmers’ suicide in India to gain more attention of such social issues. The more there is the presence of human rights, human development and human security, the more the society will have happiness and progress. More often, many of the nations do not pay much attention towards guaranteeing these rights to its citizens which ultimately lead to socio-economic unfreedom of the citizens. In many of the situations, human rights attention is paid in a later manner after the case become worst. In case of the farmers suicide too, little or no attention is paid through the state government to guarantee the farmers human rights on time. Turning deaf ear and waiting till thousands of people claim their lives show the passivity and irresponsibility of the state. There are no substantive research done to highlight HD, HR and HS issue so that the government could hear the voices on time. There are only few researches done highlighting the human rights issues. Therefore, it is also necessary to have more researches through these perspectives. It is also good have to wider perspectives of research so that the problem could be analysed well. In case of the farmers’ suicide cases in India since there were only few research materials found and no firm institutions pressing the Indian government for guaranteeing the human rights, the state in general seems very negligent in safeguarding such rights.  

---

[1] Maximalist and minimalist

[2] In the context of farmers’ suicides in India

[3] 1997-2006

Photo source: Malone, A. (2008) ‘The GM genocide: Thousands of Indian farmers are committing suicide after using genetically modified crops.’ Mail Online. Retrieved 10 January 2010